Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In Case Of Mistaken Identity

The Supreme Court of India in Sri v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu set aside the conviction of a Sri Lankan national, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish his identity as the absconding accused allegedly involved in a conspiracy to revive the banned Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi delivered the verdict, emphasizing that the appellant's conviction was based on flawed identification and a lack of credible evidence.

Court Challenges Reliability of Witness Identification

The bench scrutinized the testimonies of two key witnesses, both Sri Lankan refugees, who identified the appellant as the accused "Sri" only after his arrest in 2021. The Court noted that these witnesses had failed to mention the name "Ranjan" in any previous statements or trials conducted between 2016 and 2018. The bench observed that the identification was made while the appellant was in police custody without a proper test identification parade.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We are of the firm opinion that the Courts below erred in holding that the appellant-Ranjan is the same as the absconding accused ‘Sri’ (A-5), and the conviction based on this flawed identification cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law... The belated introduction of this name, years after the alleged incident, renders their testimonies highly suspect. Their silence in earlier proceedings, followed by this subsequent disclosure, constitutes a material improvement rather than a mere lapse of memory."

Acquittal and Liberty to Relocate

Finding no contemporaneous documentary or oral evidence linking the appellant to the crime alleged in 2015, the Court ordered his immediate release from the Special Camp in Trichy. The bench also granted him the liberty to pursue his relocation to Switzerland, where his family currently resides.

Rationale on Section 120B and UAP Act Charges

The Court highlighted the documented lawful conduct of the appellant, who had been openly residing in Trichy and engaging with the Switzerland Embassy for a visa, which was deemed inconsistent with the behavior of an absconding terrorist. The bench referred to the principles laid down in Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka ( "2024 INSC 482": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 990) regarding the dangers of convicting an individual solely on doubtful witness testimony in the absence of a test identification parade.

Background:

The dispute originated from FIR Crime No. 1 of 2015, where the Tamil Nadu 'Q' Branch Police alleged a conspiracy to rejuvenate the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). It was alleged that an accused named "Sri" (A-5) had handed over cyanide capsules and GPS equipment to other conspirators for smuggling into Sri Lanka. The appellant, who arrived in India legally in 2009 as a non-camp refugee under the name "Ranjan," was arrested in 2021 on the premise that he was the absconding "Sri."

The trial court at Ramanathapuram convicted him under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv), and 38(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 6 of the Poisons Act, 1919, Section 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Section 3 read with Section 12(1)(a) of the Passport Act, 1967. This conviction was upheld by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in 2025. However, the Supreme Court sifting through the evidence found that the prosecution had not established how they linked the name "Ranjan" to "Sri" after a five-year gap, eventually allowing the appeal.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 5141 OF 2025
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 516
Case Title: SRI v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Q BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM, TAMIL NADU

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 441